PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES

The Hon. M.F. O'BRIEN (Napier—Minister for Finance, Minister for the Public Sector) (15:24): The actual number of public servants in South Australia was the subject of much discussion in this place on Tuesday following comments by the Leader of the Opposition that she wanted to reduce the size of the public sector by up to 35,000 people. With the current headcount of 101,000 public sector employees—that is, full and part-time employees and not full-time equivalents—a reduction of 35,000 would bring the headcount for the public sector down to about a 65,000 figure nominated by the Leader of the Opposition.

The Leader of the Opposition was very clear that head count and not FTE was the metric she was using, because the leader was recorded as saying in a media interview—and quite unequivocally—that the 65,000 figure included part-time employees. The opposition leader did not say that an incoming Liberal government would reduce the size of the public sector by 35,000 in FTE terms, because this would reduce the public sector from around 85,000 to 50,000 in FTE terms.

At least that is what we understood the opposition's position to be until the member for Davenport waded in with a question, arguing that the 2002-03 budget papers showed that the full-time equivalent workforce was 66,933 people. He was either totally confused by the proposition being advanced by his leader in relation to a reduction in the public sector head count or the opposition has actually discussed their proposed reductions in terms of reducing the FTE numbers by up to 35,000, which would leave a shell of a Public Service of around only 50,000 FTEs.

Either of the courses of action now seemingly being floated by the opposition would, of course, have a devastating impact on those people made redundant and their families, and on the state's economy and the government's ability to deliver services. Despite what we can only assume to be the member for Davenport's confused reference to full-time equivalent numbers, the Leader of the Opposition is still wrong. No Liberal government for the period for which we have been able to access records has run a public sector with as few as 65,000 public servants, full and part time. As I indicated in question time, as at June 2002 there were 83,821 full and part-time public sector workers.

To reiterate, the reason for the differences between the figures supplied by myself and those supplied by the member for Davenport are obvious. Firstly, public sector numbers can be reported in terms of head count (the number of individuals) or full-time equivalent (FTE) positions. As I stated from the outset of my remarks today, the Leader of the Opposition was quite clear last week that she was talking about a reduction in people, not FTEs. This was the point of reducing from 100,000 to 65,000. The member for Davenport is therefore seeking to compare apples with oranges (FTE with head count) instead of apples with apples (head count to head count).

Another important point is that information on public sector FTEs printed in the budget documents before 2003-04 reflected only a subset of public sector workers: those aligned with the major government departments reflected in the budget portfolio statements. FTE information in the budget papers was widened in 2003-04 to more closely align with the annual survey of the state's public sector workforce conducted by the Commissioner for Public Employment, which members will know is tabled in this place. The actual FTE figure at 30 June 2002 was 69,770 and not the 66,933 quoted by the member for Davenport and, as I have said, the actual number of individuals at the time was 83,821.

What we saw on Tuesday during question time was a confused attempt to provide some rationale for the leader's inaccuracies, again highlighting the opposition's lack of preparedness for office.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!